Messiah (12)

Coin of Simon ben
Kosiba, showing the Temple with the Messianic star on the roof
and the Ark of the Covenant
inside (British
Museum)

The Hebrew
word mâšîah means 'anointed one' and may indicate
Jewish priests, prophets and kings. During the sixth century BCE,
the exiled Jews in Babylonia
started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home;
several written prophecies were fulfilled when the Persian king Cyrus
the Great did in fact allow them to return. In the second century BCE,
the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became
relevant again. Some people were looking forward to a military
leader who would defeat the Seleucid
or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom; others, like
the author of the Psalms of Solomon, stated that the Messiah was
a charismatic teacher who gave the correct
interpretation of Mosaic law, was to restore Israel
and would judge mankind.
Jesus of
Nazareth was considered a Messiah; a century later, Simon
bar Kochba. The idea of an eschatological king has been present in
Judaism ever since.

We must, however, be cauteous. Many expressions are used to describe the
Messiah, but we can not always be certain that a fragment that uses an
expression refers to the Messiah. He is often called 'shoot' and 'branch',
but a damaged, fragmentary text that uses these expressions may as well
be dealing with horticulture. That caution is needed, can be illustrated
by a text like the Sibylline oracles, a collection of oracles that
contains many messianic motifs and alludes to the restauration of Israel,
but does nowhere mention a Messiah.

In this part of the present article, we will focus on the 'son of'-titles
of the Messiah.

Son of David

'Son of David' is, together with the reference to the prophecy of Balaam,
the most common messianic motif. Jesus
of Nazareth and Simon
ben Kosiba, who were probably no descendants of the legendary
king, were called 'son of David'. It was, therefore, a honorary title that
had little to do with family ties.

It should be noted that in the first century of the common era, there
were still people who were (or claimed to be) descendants of David. In
1971/1972, a cave was discovered in Jerusalem that served as an ossuary
for 'the house of David'. The implication of this discovery is that texts
mentioning a 'son of David', may simply refer to members of the former
royal family and not to the Messiah. (The discovery of this osuary also
opens the possibility that Jesus and Simon were real descendants of David.)

Being the son of David, it was natural that the Messiah would come from
Bethlehem. Indeed, we read in
John 7.42 that the prophecy
of Micah (above) was interpreted
in this way, and the narratives about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem as told
by Matthew 2.1 and Luke 2.4 belong to the most famous stories
of mankind. It is therefore often maintained that the Christmas-stories
were written because the Jews believed that the Messiah had to be born
in Bethlehem. This seems to be incorrect, however. To the best of the knowledge
of the present author, there is not one single Jewish text that
mentions this belief. The only two references available can be found in
Aramaic translations of Micah, which date from the second century CE or
even later (targum Micah 5.1 and targum ps.-Jonathan 35.19-21).

The shoot, the root and the branch

The 'shoot' and 'branch' (or 'root') are mentioned for the first time in
Isaiah
11.1 (quoted above), where we can read
that 'a shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch
will bear fruit'. This line and line 6 were accepted as messianic, as can
be seen in the Aramaic adaptation:

And a king shall come forth from the sons of Jesse, and the
Messiah shall be exalted from the sons of his sons.

In the days of the Messiah of Israel shall peace increase in the land,
and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling togetherm and a
little suckling child will lead them.

[Targum Isaiah 11.1 and 6]

This translation must antedate the ideas of the author of 4 Ezra,
who thought that the Messiah's appearance was a mere prelude to the apocalyptic
end of history. Since 4 Ezra can be dated in 100 CE, the messianic
interpretation of the 'shoot' can be dated in the first century CE.

An earlier, similar interpretation can be found in one of the Dead Sea-scrolls,
a commentary on Isaiah from the last quarter of the first century BCE.

The interpretation of the matter concerns the branch of David,
who will appear at the end of days to save Israel and to exterminate his
enemies. And God will sustain him with a mighty spirit [...] And God will
give him a throne of glory, a holy crown.

[4Q161]

4Q285 uses the same image and is as
old as 4Q161. Earlier is the Testament of Judah, which was written
during the Maccabaean revolt.
In the first line, 'Judah' alludes to Balaam's
prophecy, Maleachi 4.2 and Joel 2.28.

And after this there shall arise for you
a star from Jacob in peace. And a man shall arise from my posterity like
the sun of righteousness, walking with sons of men in gladness and righteousness,
and in him will be found no sin. And the heavens will be opened upon him
to pour out the spirit as a blessing of the holy Father. And he will pour
out the spirit of grace on you. And you shall be sons in truth, and you
will walk in his first and final decrees. This is the shoot of God most
high, this is the fountain for the life of all humanity. Then he will illumine
the scepter of my kingdom, and from your root will arise the shoot, and
through it will arise the rod of righteousness for the nations, to judge
and to save all that call on the Lord.

[Testament of Judah 24]

There are even older examples of allusions to Isaiah 11: Jeremiah
23.5 (above) and Zechariah
3.8 (above) and 6.12
(above). The texts from Zechariah
date from the years after the Babylonian
exile and the prophecy of Jeremiah may be written at the same time, or
may be even older.

A final remark should be made about the title
Nazoraios
or Nazarenos that was given to Jesus
in the gospels, which were written in Greek. This may mean that Jesus was
a nazir, someone who had taken a special vow. However, it is linguistically
impossible to change the second syllable -zir- into -zor-
or -zar-. A better explanation is that it is a rendering of netzer,
'root'.

Son of God

The title 'son of God' is best known as one of the titles of Jesus
of Nazareth. It was not an uncommon title in Jewish literature.
As we have seen above, it was used in
Psalm
2 to describe the king: 'You are My son, today I have become your father'.
The expression is also used several times for Joseph (Joseph and Aseneth;
this is a romance from the first century BCE or CE). Consequently, the
discovery of a fragment of parchment in the fourth cave of Qumran mentioning
the son of God was not a big surprise, although a surprising non-messianic
interpretation is possible.

[...] When great fear settled upon him, he fell down before
thr throne. Then he said to the king: 'Live, o king, forever! You are vexed,
and changed is the complexion of your face; depressed is your gaze. But
you shall rule over everything forever! And your deed will be great. Yet
distress shall come upon the earth; there will be war among the peoples
and great carnage in the provinces, which the bands of the king of Assyria
will cause. And Egypt will be with them. But your son shall be great upon
the earth, and all peoples shall make peace with him, and they shall all
serve him. For he shall be called "son of the great God", and by his name
he shall be named. He shall be hailed "son of God" and they shall call
him "son of the most high".

For some years they shall rule upon the earth and shall trample everything
under foot; people shall trample upon people; province upon province, until
there arises the people of God, and everyone rests from the sword. Then
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all his ways shall be
in truth. He shall judge the land with truth, and everyone shall make peace.
The sword will cease from the land, and all the provinces shall pay him
homage. The great God, by his might, shall make war for him. Peoples He
shall put in his hand; and all of them He shall cast before him. His dominion
shall be an everlasting dominion, and all of the territories of the earth
shall be his.'

[4Q246]

Much has been made of this text, perhaps too much. It should be stressed
that the word Messiah is not used, and that no mention is made of a common
messianic expressions like 'prince', 'shoot', 'branch' or 'son of David'.
The only real argument for a messianic interpretation is the fact that
Jesus was also called 'son of God', and this may have been a late invention
(go here for christology).

In fact, there is an easier interpretation of this fragment: it refers
to the Roman emperor Augustus
(27 BCE - 14 CE). The Romans considered him to be the son of the divine
Julius
Caesar ('he shall be hailed "son of God"'), and came to power after
the Parthians ('the bands of the king of Assyria') had caused 'war among
the peoples and great carnage', and after the Egyptian queen Cleopatra
VII had waged war against the Romans. Augustus is known to have
been kind towards the Jews, and it is possible that the author of 4Q246
sympathized with his reign of peace.

In conclusion, we can state that the Psalms offer proof that
'son of God' was a possible title for the Messiah, but that evidence is
lacking that this text was indeed used.

Antiochus IV Ephiphanes

Son of man

This title became popular with the apocalyptic book of Daniel
7, which was written between 165 and 160. Having told about
the rise and fall the Babylonian, Median
and Achaemenid
empires, the author describes how the Seleucid
king Antiochus
IV Epiphanes persecutes the Jews. In true apocalyptic fashion, he is
represented as 'a horn with human eyes and a mouth speaking boastful things'.

As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of
days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his
head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning
fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand
thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.
I looked then because of the sound of the boastful
words which the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was slain,
and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the
rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were
prolonged for a season and a time.
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the
clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the ancient
of days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and
glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve
him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

[Daniel 7.9-14]

Who is this person like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven
and ruling after Antiochus? He can not be identified, but one thing is
certain: the author of Daniel was not thinking of the Messiah. Had this
been the case, he would have used expressions like 'son of David', 'the
branch' or 'prince'.

Nonetheless, the text was already understood in messianic sense in the
Book
of similitudes, one of the parts of the First
book of Enoch, written two or three generations after the composition
of Daniel at the beginning of the first century BCE (quote).
In the Gospel of Mark, we encounter a similar identification of the Messiah
and the son of man in the story of Jesus'
trial before Caiaphas.

The high-priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the son of
the Blessed?'
Jesus replied, 'I am. And you will see the son of
man seated at the right hand of the Power, coming with the clouds of heaven.'

[Mark 14.61-62]

Many later Christian texts have accepted this identification. In the second
century, rabbi Aqiba had the same idea. The following fragment discusses
Daniel
7.9.

Thrones were placed - what is there to say? One throne
for Him and one for [the son of] David, even as has been taught: 'One was
for Him and one was for David' - the words of rabbi Aqiba.
Rabbi Yose said to him: 'Aqiba, how long will you
profane God? Rather, one throne is for justice and one for mercy.'
Did he accept this answer from him, or did he not
accept it? Come and hear what has been taught: 'One throne for justice
and one for mercy' - from now on, the words of rabbi Aqiba.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him: 'Aqiba, what do
you have to do with the interpretations of narratives? You'd better occupy
yourself with purity laws. It is: one as a throne and one as a footstool:
a throne as a seat and a footstool for support of His feet.'

[Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b]

From this text it is clear that rabbi Aqiba was criticized because he had
given the Messiah a throne equal to that of God, something that the other
teachers were not willing to accept. The idea that the Messiah was to sit
next to God may not have become the common Jewish interpretation, but it
is obvious that no one challenged that the son of man was the Messiah.